America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by ZRX1200. 64 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Mother effers. This is too much.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
TMCTLT Offline
#51 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
CruzJ wrote:
Pretty scary stuff that the U.S Patent office can make something non-existent with just the stroke of a pen.



That seems to be this Administrations " Mantra " .....I've got a pen and a phone baby!!!
gryphonms Offline
#52 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 1:21 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
Wonder if there really is a law to justify this or if they are winging it. Seems like double jeopardy in a way. If a license was granted shouldn't it be forever. Reminds me of hate crimes laws. If someone is found innocent they should not be tried again, that is double jeopardy no matter how you spin it.
victor809 Offline
#53 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 1:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gryphonms wrote:
Wonder if there really is a law to justify this or if they are winging it. Seems like double jeopardy in a way. If a license was granted shouldn't it be forever. Reminds me of hate crimes laws. If someone is found innocent they should not be tried again, that is double jeopardy no matter how you spin it.


Interesting you should ask that.

So I thought I'd look into it. .

First:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064

This lays out broad terms under which a trademark can be revoked. Pay close attention to section"C" (which is not time sensitive, and references 1052 a-c.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052

Here's 1052... section 1052 A has an interesting position about denying trademarks if they bring contempt or disrepute to any persons, national symbols etc etc...

essentially, IF one could argue "redskins" is a derogatory term, THEN one could argue the trademark is bringing contempt to some persons/institutions/symbols...

Anyway, its an interesting concept, but I doubt anyone's going to read those. they'll probably yell a lot though.
gryphonms Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
1052(a) states that disparaging trademarks can be refused, I see no linkage there to revocation, that's why I think they are winging it. Also this becomes a 1st amendment issue regarding freedom of speech. This also opens a slippery slope as to who decides what is derogatory and when. To point out a simple example of this in 1960 calling anyone gay was a derogatory slur. Now if someone is gay it is normal to call them gay. I still think the Redskins should change their name, but doing it this way is wrong many levels. Change like this happens organically, not legislatively.
victor809 Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 3:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gryphonms wrote:
1052(a) states that disparaging trademarks can be refused, I see no linkage there to revocation, that's why I think they are winging it. Also this becomes a 1st amendment issue regarding freedom of speech. This also opens a slippery slope as to who decides what is derogatory and when. To point out a simple example of this in 1960 calling anyone gay was a derogatory slur. Now if someone is gay it is normal to call them gay. I still think the Redskins should change their name, but doing it this way is wrong many levels. Change like this happens organically, not legislatively.


Dude.
I don't even think they should change their name (If you read the article I linked earlier, redskins wasn't actually a derogatory name, it was just used at the time that we decided to take all their land, rape their women and kill them. If we'd called them native americans while doing that, someone would be calling that term derogatory) but you're still wrong. There's a reason I linked section 1064... go back to my previous post:

Section 3 of 1064 states: "its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 1054 of this title or of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 1052".... essentially saying they can revoke it at any time if they should have refused it at the beginning.

Additionally, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 1st amendment. Revoking a trademark has less to do with the 1st amendment than regulation of a private discount cigar forum . Even if they successfully revoked the trademark, the Redskins can still be the redskins.

The whole thing is silly and unnecessary, but one shouldn't defend it for the wrong reasons... that spreads misinformation.
gryphonms Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
1064 talks about fraudulently obtaining a trademark which is not the case. Then it references 1054 which is about tradmark registration. Then it references 1052 a, b, and c. 1052 a is about trademark refusal. 1052 b and c are not relevant.

After reading the ACLU position I have to agree with you there is no case based on the 1st amendment. Also the above referenced information is enough to pull the trademark.
victor809 Offline
#57 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 5:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gryphonms wrote:
1064 talks about fraudulently obtaining a trademark which is not the case. Then it references 1054 which is about tradmark registration. Then it references 1052 a, b, and c. 1052 a is about trademark refusal. 1052 b and c are not relevant.

After reading the ACLU position I have to agree with you there is no case based on the 1st amendment. Also the above referenced information is enough to pull the trademark.


It's all in the details.
1064 states that a trademark can be revoked after any period of time, if it is found to not meet the provisions of 1052 (a)(b) or (c)... so, while 1052 is drafted to provide guidelines for issuing, they acknowledge that if it is issued, but later is found to not meet the 1052 guidelines, then it can be revoked.

Of course, someone still has to prove that it meets the description in 1052.

They've tried this 15 years previously, and failed. There's no reason to think they'll succeed this time either.
jackconrad Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
The thing is this Name is about Pride, and being excellent.. Prolly if Dan Snidley sold the team the thing would not have happened..

This Dictatorship must end ,NOW!
stogiemonger Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2014, 9:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2009
Posts: 4,185
The Washington White Devils.



Do it Dan!



I wanna be offended too. I feel so left out.
tailgater Offline
#60 Posted: Sat, Jun 21 2014, 11:50 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Someone is offended by Redskin.
Too effin bad.

I'm gonna buy some redskin paraphernalia before it's too late.
pdxstogieman Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 12:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
TMCTLT wrote:
Look long and hard @ Ding Harry as he HAS been a driving force behind this. He is a disgusting POS


And you're an embittered pus sucker.
pdxstogieman Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 12:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
and no, i didn't omit two more letters off a word there.
pdxstogieman Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 12:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
TMCTLT wrote:
With ALL due respect, where does it end? When the Law and or Constitution begins to work " Harder " for the individuals rights OVER what the Majority believe .....we're screwed. As you pointed out and I agree, this is a privately owned business and if the Indian Nation is offended then I would expect them to NOT SUPPORT that team or it's owner. But to force political correctness on others is every BIT as wrong headed. Where the HELL is all this false outrage coming from lately anyway? It's not like he just bought and named his team. I'm personally " offended " by the whole Gay rights movement......my outrage goes unnoticed, and their Bill of Rights.....keeps growing.


Could you please include more words in CAPS and "air quotation marks" in your post so I can really understand the extent of your overwrought outrage on this issue.
ZRX1200 Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 1:04 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
WHAT?????

"WHAT'S YOUR"

"DEAL?"
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top